>I was wondering if Allen and others could illustrate if and
>how WIND exhibit these traits.
My plate is full for the moment, but I would like to make a couple of observations about Moore's "Gorilla Game" and its formal application to WIND.
I am stunned by the similarity between Moore's "low-risk" investment and what has been advocated on this thread - long before he wrote either "Inside the Tornado" or "The Gorilla Game". (I always wondered when someone would suggest WIND named its flagship product "Tornado" to help customers, partner and investors see the connection. In fact, WIND's Tornado beat the book to market, so joint use of the same name is a coincidence, unless Moore borrowed it from WIND.)
There are two main differences between Moore's writings and the meandering thoughts piled up over two years on this thread. By far and away Moore's concepts are much better organized and presented, and he does a marvelous job of associating gorilla possibilities with high-tech industries, rather than fall back on over-used generic concepts like "franchise", or Buffett's "Toll Booth", or "monopoly". Second, as has been amply pointed out on this thread, and I admit, I try to spot Gorillas earlier than what may be wise for the conservative investor. Otherwise, I find little objectionable about what Moore says, and indeed find myself astonished that many of his controversial statements are consistent with my beliefs.
According to "The Gorilla Game", as an enabling technology, the embedded systems RTOS and tools business is smack dab in Gorilla territory, i.e., it lies in geography ideal for finding Gorillas. Unlike application sectors, like enterprise resource software, however, Moore recommends waiting for concrete signs of the beginnings of a Tornado before choosing a winner and investing. While the embedded systems tools business clearly has crossed the chasm, and is firmly "embedded" in his so-called "Bowling Allies", it has yet to reach Tornado proportions. I hope to explain why this has yet to happen, and what will trigger a change in the post I owe on the Microsoft threat.
Given this, why have I been recommending WIND as a potential Gorilla? Because WIND's distinctive advantages seemed probable in 1993, and highly likely starting in March of 1994. Over the last couple of years, to me at least, WIND's unstoppable advantages have become obvious. Keep in mind that Moore apologizes for recommending conservative entry points to enabling technology Gorillas, but anything more aggressive is too risky for most investors with limited technical knowledge. Stated differently, this thread has been completely consistent with concepts espoused in "The Gorilla Game", as long as you believe somehow we have managed to assess the market implications of related technology adequately.
Moore recommends selling off would-be gorillas once it becomes obvious they cannot compete against the remaining candidates, and concentrating investments in remaining candidates. This is why I have never revisited INTS or MWAR as serious investment vehicles after they both broke down in the face of competition from WIND. The remaining question is whether a Gorilla from an adjacent space (MSFT from the PC paradigm, or SUNW from proprietary computers) can capture ownership of the space.
However, at this point, with the only possibility of serious competition stemming from a Gorilla in another space, the investor can rest easy knowing that, in the worst case going forward, WIND WILL BE GIVEN significant market share, if only to counter moves by the another Gorilla. In the best case, WIND will dominant the third wave of computers, and join the ranks of world-class monopolists that dominated the first two waves.
Allen
PS - I will be arguing in favor of the second case in my promised post. |
